On Mon, Jul 29, 1996 3:50:42 PM, Samuel A. Chambers wrote:
>So, to return again to Derrida's framing of the issues, it may be that to
the
>extent that you feel it necessary to retain a responsibility to a certain
>"scientific" spirit of Marxism, that you and I are inheriting different
Marx's.
I've read about half of that book and I've heard JD himself discussing it
and I still have absolutely no clue what it's all about. However, I agree
that it is relevant to our discussion of Foucault for the following reason:
Derrida seems more interested in the larger historical and "discursive
effect", if you want, of Marx's political legacy within western self
descriptive narratives (of political progress, democratization, etc).
Marx's spirit haunts these narratives like the ghost of Hamlet's father,
veiled, etc.........
However inadequate a summary may be, it points out that derrida is
concerned with the discursive effects of this legacy, not an engagement
with the philosophical content of his writings. These are two very
different questions, and maintaining their distinction is important.
Similarly foucault might have had varying flirtations with this western
marxism as a discursive development occupying a structural position
permitting it a certain critical character. This should not be confused
with his treatment of marxist philosophy, which is a seperate issue.
just by the fact that derrida writes about the "spirit of marx", I think he
is separating the content of marxian philosophy from its historical effect,
no?
sb
>So, to return again to Derrida's framing of the issues, it may be that to
the
>extent that you feel it necessary to retain a responsibility to a certain
>"scientific" spirit of Marxism, that you and I are inheriting different
Marx's.
I've read about half of that book and I've heard JD himself discussing it
and I still have absolutely no clue what it's all about. However, I agree
that it is relevant to our discussion of Foucault for the following reason:
Derrida seems more interested in the larger historical and "discursive
effect", if you want, of Marx's political legacy within western self
descriptive narratives (of political progress, democratization, etc).
Marx's spirit haunts these narratives like the ghost of Hamlet's father,
veiled, etc.........
However inadequate a summary may be, it points out that derrida is
concerned with the discursive effects of this legacy, not an engagement
with the philosophical content of his writings. These are two very
different questions, and maintaining their distinction is important.
Similarly foucault might have had varying flirtations with this western
marxism as a discursive development occupying a structural position
permitting it a certain critical character. This should not be confused
with his treatment of marxist philosophy, which is a seperate issue.
just by the fact that derrida writes about the "spirit of marx", I think he
is separating the content of marxian philosophy from its historical effect,
no?
sb